July 6, 2012

"For context, that's about what we raised in April and May combined. We're still tallying our own numbers, but this means their gap is getting wider, and if it continues at this pace, it could cost us the election."

They can cue up "Democracy Died Tonight" dude and complain about how they were outspent and how unfair that is and explains why they lost and it's Citzens United's fault and Roberts really isn't their friend.

Of course, when Obama was spending gazillions against McCain that was just proof of how awesome he was.

"My God, Barry. My GOD. I am just one woman. I only have so many arms with which to throw out gaudy furniture to prepare for these goddamn fucking bullshit fundraisers of yours. My God, Barry. What the fuck? I knew tossing SJP's entire townhouse into a trash heap was a thankless job, but for you to go and broadcast my shortcomings to the entire fucking world... My God. Barry. Really. Fuck you.

-AW

P.S. Those Sonny/Cher salt & pepper shakers I lent SJP to replace those hideous shakers she had in her dumpy shack? Yeah, I haven't seen them since. And SJP isn't returning my calls. Do something out this."

By the way, "Romney and the Republicans" sounds like a bad cover band. Rather benign, I think, and devoid of the sinister, menacing quality Team Obama is trying to project. "Romney and the Republicans announced yesterday that they brought in more than $100 million in June." Is your first thought:

b) Hmm, sounds like their tour is doing really well. I haven't even heard of them! But $100 million in revenue in just one month--they must be good. Perhaps a blend of Donny & Marie and the Shirelles. I'd better check them out on Amazon...through the Althouse Amazone portal, of course.

The number I always wonder about, but never see mentioned, is Obama's costs of funds raised.

Before the election got underway, Obama was talking about a billion dollar war chest. Now, some of that is just trying to scare rivals out of the race, but I think it's reasonable to think that he expected to raise more than they are raising so far. But what I really wonder is, did he set his fundraising *budget* for the larger number?

If you figure that costs are going to be steady or rising as a percentage of funds raised, you can see how a bad estimate of this year's fundraising haul could not only raise less money, but cost a *lot* more than you would want to spend if you knew in advance that the returns would be disappointing. It was a pretty common death spiral for startup companies that tried to go for the mass market back in the day -- you try for a million customers by advertising on the Super Bowl, then when the customers don't arrive, you discover that you don't have any money to improve the website, either.

A lot of things are driving this. One is the anger vote, angry at what Obama has done over the last 3 1/2 years, anger at where the country has gone, anger at the 5 trillion or so of borrowed money flushed down the toilet, angry about a fourth year of recession, etc.

But, now, some of the "smart money" is jumping in. The stakes are a lot higher now - back then, you might have to bundle a couple hundred thousand for serious consideration for some appointments - now it is a million. These are people who don't give just to give, but rather, give to be on the winning side. And, at least some of them are splitting their money, with some going to each side. And, even if they don't play both sides, many of them just sat on the side lines four years ago, knowing that their money wouldn't really help McCain that much.

What is interesting to me about Romney's fund raising is that it is so much lower key than Obama's. You see Romney out on the campaign trail, and not at fund raisers. He has to be doing a lot of it, but it just isn't all that visible. Plus, it could indicate that he has a better greased campaign running than does the President. We shall see.

@ Fred thanks for providing the links to OpenSecrets.org. If I’m reading them correctly it’s looks like Obama has raised $255 million and spent $14 million compared to $121 million raised and $55 million spent by Romney. So basically Obama has a 2 to 1 money advantage over Romney but is complaining that he’s going to be “outspent.”

The truth is that the super PAC founded by top Obama staffers and its aligned “independent” groups are outspending groups that oppose the president by roughly two to one.

NB these super PACS are funding overwhelmingly negative ads. All the while, of course, Axelrod refers to "“the Rove and Koch brothers contract killers over there in super-PAC land.”

Contract killers.

It's weird, isn't it, that the Obama campaign-- the campaign of an incumbent POTUS (the most powerful position in the world)-- feels it has to run as an underdog, eliciting pity? Thereby connoting an image of "Romney and the Republicans" as a powerful alpha dog (albeit a vicious one)?

@Synova:This is why I object to the definition of "lying" that requires the intent to deceive be accompanied by something not-true.

This is why I objection to a definition of murder that requires the intent to do harm accompanied by an actual unlawful killing. Because I want to vastly expand the number of things I call "murder". It's so hard to choose from so many words if they all mean different things. Let's equate them all and pick the most inflammatory one.

I haven't given Romney any money, but I am giving him my time this weekend. I used to think I couldn't vote for him what with Romneycare and all, but after the Supreme Court decision, I decided we need to throw every bum out who voted for that freedom killing monstrosity. I'll do my bit to help.

Does anyone know what other races around the country involve politicians who voted for Obamacare?

Yet intent is exactly what defines murder. And someone certainly can murder by intent and *inaction* and get convicted of it. There are a number of ways to get convicted of murder without actually killing someone yourself.

@Synova:There are a number of ways to get convicted of murder without actually killing someone yourself.

Charles Manson springs to mind. But no one was convicted of murder with their victim still living. And no one has lied if they have made true statements. They might have misled or deceived you, certainly.

There aren't really many ways of committing murder such that you can be convicted of it that don't involve doing anything yourself. The felony murder rule means that you are involved in a crime in the course of which someone else kills someone. Murder-for-hire involves hiring a killer. And so forth.

The closest thing I can think of would be refusing help to someone in mortal distress when you could easily give it. Say your rich uncle, who's willed you all his money, is having a choking fit, and you just wait until he's dead before going to get help. Could that be prosecuted as a murder case? I think it would be essentially impossible.

If Obama is comparing Democratic fundraising for his Presidential campaign alone to Republican fundraising for Romney and every other Republican candidate for any office in the entire country, then Synova's damn well right. That is so blatantly deceptive that you might as well go ahead and call it a lie.

Mr. Google still says Romney and the Republican National Committee. We might assume that the RNC money is only the RNC money specifically marked for Romney's campaign, but Mr. Google does not SAY that.

And everything else shows Obama and the Democrats, together or separately, with more money than the Republicans.

Also, I have to wonder... if *this* counts as a fundraising own-goal for Obama...

(CNN)"And the campaign underwent a fund-raising boom in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the controversial health care law that Romney and Republicans vehemently stand against. Less than 24 hours after the high court announced its decision, Romney's camp took in more than $4.6 million online from over 47,000 contributors."

If we want to finely parse the truth, does that even count as Romeny fund raising... if Obama did it?

Here's what I found when I asked Mr. Google about the RNC part... Politico's Mike Allen first reported the total, which includes contributions to both Romney's campaign and the Romney Victory Fund—a joint account between the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee.

This is why I object to the definition of "lying" that requires the intent to deceive be accompanied by something not-true.

There are lies of commission where you say something false and lies of omission where you leave out true information in order to deceive the other person.

When my son was in school I asked him if he had been working on a paper that I knew he needed to do for English class. He replied that he got to school early enough to work on it there. It took me about fifteen minutes before I realized he didn't answer my question.